6 ms·

Apple still regularly releases large portions of macOS. Confused about some poorly documented keychain behavior? Just look at the source, e.g., https://opensou

by wahern 4y ago

Apple still regularly releases large portions of macOS. Confused about some poorly documented keychain behavior? Just look at the source, e.g., https://opensource.apple.com/source/Security/Security-59754.80.3/OSX/libsecurity_keychain/lib/SecItem.cpp.auto.html https://opensource.apple.com/source/Security/Security-59754.... https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Security/blob/Security-59754.80.3/OSX/libsecurity_keychain/lib/SecItem.cpp https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Security/blob/Sec... Access to such source code is not nothing, and certainly seems more than just a marketing gimmick.

pipeline_peak 4y ago
They were always releasing code, that wasn’t the problem. They clearly never helped to make it a usable standalone oss product, at all. Just look at what the author said about breaking backwards compatibility upstream, with no regards to non Mac Darwin. It’s melodramatic to call what Apple did a “marketing stunt”, but that code on its own is pretty useless.
- skohan 4y ago
  Similar behavior is what turned me off of Swift. I still think it’s a nice language to write, but I tried to adopt it on Linux and the situation with tooling was so horrendous. Lots of things were under-supported or under-documented, and every release would break things in unexpected ways. I don’t know if it was intentional, or a lack of priority, but I got tired of having to work so hard just to get my programs to compile.
  - tempodox 4y ago
    My own anecdotal experience is that it's not that much better on Apple's platforms. Documentation may have gotten the tiniest bit better, but there's still way too much information missing. And Apple's platforms are a constantly moving target. It may turn out tomorrow that the work required to keep up is just too much. Too many incentives, IMO, to not develop for these platforms if one can avoid it.
    - pipeline_peak 4y ago
      > Too many incentives, IMO, to not develop for these platforms if one can avoid it. C# had this issue for a long time as well. Any desktop app support outside of Windows is abysmal. These languages don’t really bring anything groundbreaking to the table anyway. They just coat them in syntax sugar so you’ll stay hooked on their platform. It’s much more sensible to write web apps and have them run in Electron or I guess alternatives, but you didn’t need me to say that.
any1 4y ago
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: that having access to source code is really useful for developing and debugging, regardless of whether there is a community around the project. I've been experimenting with ONVIF to create an IP camera that can be integrated with windows without the user having to install any additional software. I almost never touch windows and I must say that the experience has been very frustrating because things do not behave according to spec and I can't look at the source code to see what's actually happening. Access to source code makes a world of difference. Otherwise, you're left guessing and the quality of your product will suffer because you end up doing "whatever works" under your circumstances. Under different circumstances that can break.

by wahern 4y ago

pipeline_peak 4y ago

They were always releasing code, that wasn’t the problem. They clearly never helped to make it a usable standalone oss product, at all. Just look at what the author said about breaking backwards compatibility upstream, with no regards to non Mac Darwin. It’s melodramatic to call what Apple did a “marketing stunt”, but that code on its own is pretty useless.

skohan 4y ago
Similar behavior is what turned me off of Swift. I still think it’s a nice language to write, but I tried to adopt it on Linux and the situation with tooling was so horrendous. Lots of things were under-supported or under-documented, and every release would break things in unexpected ways. I don’t know if it was intentional, or a lack of priority, but I got tired of having to work so hard just to get my programs to compile.
- tempodox 4y ago
  My own anecdotal experience is that it's not that much better on Apple's platforms. Documentation may have gotten the tiniest bit better, but there's still way too much information missing. And Apple's platforms are a constantly moving target. It may turn out tomorrow that the work required to keep up is just too much. Too many incentives, IMO, to not develop for these platforms if one can avoid it.
  - pipeline_peak 4y ago
    > Too many incentives, IMO, to not develop for these platforms if one can avoid it. C# had this issue for a long time as well. Any desktop app support outside of Windows is abysmal. These languages don’t really bring anything groundbreaking to the table anyway. They just coat them in syntax sugar so you’ll stay hooked on their platform. It’s much more sensible to write web apps and have them run in Electron or I guess alternatives, but you didn’t need me to say that.

any1 4y ago

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing: that having access to source code is really useful for developing and debugging, regardless of whether there is a community around the project. I've been experimenting with ONVIF to create an IP camera that can be integrated with windows without the user having to install any additional software. I almost never touch windows and I must say that the experience has been very frustrating because things do not behave according to spec and I can't look at the source code to see what's actually happening. Access to source code makes a world of difference. Otherwise, you're left guessing and the quality of your product will suffer because you end up doing "whatever works" under your circumstances. Under different circumstances that can break.